Posted on 04/20/2005 5:36:46 AM PDT by FlyLow
It's nice to hear Americans talk about privacy and fighting for their rights. But sometimes I have to say: Do you know what you're talking about?
In Okemos, Mich., a 71-year-old health nut named Howard Weyers runs a health-care benefits company called Weyco. Weyers thinks his employees should be healthy, too, so years ago, he hired an in-house private trainer. Any employee who works with her and then meets certain exercise goals earns a $110 bonus per month.
So far, so good. But then, in November 2003, Weyers made an announcement that shocked his staff: "I'm introducing a smoking policy," he said.
"You're not going to smoke if you work here. Period."
No smoking at work. No smoking at home. No nicotine patch or nicotine gum. The company would do random tests and fire anyone with nicotine in his system.
"Two hundred people in a room," Weyers recalls, "and they went at me."
"I yelled out," said Anita Epolito, "'You can't do that to me, it's against the law.'"
That's not true. In Michigan and 19 other states, employers have the legal right to fire anyone, as long as they don't violate discrimination laws (for age, gender, race, religion, disabilities, etc.).
Weyers gave his employees 15 months to quit smoking, and he offered assistance to help.
Today, he calls the policy a success. Twenty Weyco employees who smoked, stopped. Some of their spouses even quit.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
See my last post, #240, for the possible results of your "condition".
Oh puhleez!! The man OWNS the company and can do as he likes re pursuing any legal changes in work rules. If any of his employees don't like the rules then they can find other work and they can do so while still employed by the "old prune"
Sounds like you have a problem with authority. Life ain't fair and the boss is the boss. You sound like a hand wringing member of the feelings flock.
You are guessing here. Perhaps he wanted no smoking employees because his health care costs would be less. I never saw him on Fox so I don't know this but it makes perfect sense if he is picking up any portion of the health care benefit.
I've seen it before here -- where employers are no longer real people and are restricted like the fedgov because somehow that makes life "more fair."
You cite Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833) as proof that a private citizen cannot violate the Constitution?
This I have to see. -- Please quote where Marshall takes that position in the decision.
Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=32&page=243
You stil haven't proven how employers are restricted by the Bil of Rights.
Employment is a voluntary arrangement, and when one side ceases to abide by the arrangement, there are only two possible outcomes.1) The contract, having been violated by one of the parties, is void and the employment ends.
2) Force, or threat of force, is employed to make one of the parties comply to the new conditions. This force, when used by the employer, is called slavery. This force, when employed by the worker, is called "laws bought and paid for by Unions and/or the ACLU".
There's a third possibility, which is the one I'd been considering. It's that some portion of the contract is legally unenforceable and the remaining terms, if any, are still subject to enforcement by a court. This alternative isn't 'statist' because it relies only on the common law of contract and the limits placed on the courts -- not the employer -- by the Constitution. No new gubmint regulations needed, just an extension of an existing cause of action (wrongful termination).
The discussion so far has persuaded me that this alternative probably won't work. But in my opinion, anyway, it was worth discussing.
You are guessing here. Perhaps he wanted no smoking employees because his health care costs would be less. I never saw him on Fox so I don't know this but it makes perfect sense if he is picking up any portion of the health care benefit.
I'm sorry, but I never said anything about gun owners. And as long as I worked, I never knew of any employers health benefits paying for sick smokers. Unless they were in their 60's and were life long smokers. But they are at retirement age anyway.
Pinging a constitutional lawyer....
Modernman wrote:
"A private citizen cannot violate the Constitution. The Constitution deals with the relationship between government and individuals. That is Con. Law 101."
P_A_I responds:
"That is an opinion you've simply made up. I bet you can't cite a source."
Sounds like you have a problem with authority. Life ain't fair and the boss is the boss. You sound like a hand wringing member of the feelings flock.
My Gawd, are you a member of this man's family? Sure sounds like it!
I never had problems with authority. Life aint' fair and the boss is the boss???!!! You are getting a little too personal towards me for my liking fella!
I worked for 8 years as a SATO Travel Agent on Loring Air Force Base right up to the very last day until they closed in September of 1994. There were two of us. The other agent was useless and the head office let HIM go and I ran the office for the last year by myself until the end. So no, I don't think that "I" had any problems with authority my friend.
You cite Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833) as proof that a private citizen cannot violate the Constitution?
No, I cite Barron v. Baltimore as a place for you to begin your research into the history of the doctrine that the Constitution as originally ratified bound only the federal government, and that the Fourteenth Amendment simply extended this situation to state governments. You can follow links and use Google as well as I can.
This I have to see. -- Please quote where Marshall takes that position in the decision.
Okay:
The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and, we think, necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself; not of distinct governments, framed by different persons and for different purposes.
The emphases are mine, of course, and they indicate the passages where Justice Marshall states that the limitations on power in the Constitution apply only to the government thereby created.
Sorry, but we're not all hypocrites here.
So only "real" conservatives are for state intervention in private relationships?
You still haven't proven how employers are restricted by the Bill of Rights.
Take a look, this applies to all citizens of the USA:
The Oath of Citizenship
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
--- To me, it's self evident that all of us, even our employers, are obligated to support & defend the Bill of Rights.
Can I go outside and have a smoke?
No, I cite Barron v. Baltimore as a place for you to begin your research into the history of the doctrine that the Constitution as originally ratified bound only the federal government, and that the Fourteenth Amendment simply extended this situation to state governments.
We had much the same discussion on 'States Rights' just the other day on a different thread. You bowed out. If you want to continue, the threads still there.
This I have to see. -- Please quote where Marshall takes that position [that a private citizen cannot violate the Constitution] in the decision.
Okay:
The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and, we think, necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself; not of distinct governments, framed by different persons and for different purposes.
The emphases are mine, of course, and they indicate the passages where Justice Marshall states that the limitations on power in the Constitution apply only to the government thereby created.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that a private citizen can violate the Constitution.
rdcorso
What happens if all the employers in an area get together and decide the lifestyles that are acceptable for their employees?
I'm not a big fan of the government or a business dictating what people can do in their free time.
______________________________________
That's the real danger in all this 'employer rights' BS.
Many employers are now claiming the power to regulate an employee's right to own weapons.
- If they 'win', -- that's de facto gun control without 'violating' our rights.
Hell of a way to run a republic, but as we see even supposed conservatives can be conned into supporting these "Unintended Consequences".
240 P_A_I
____________________________________
So only "real" conservatives are for state intervention in private relationships?
253 s2r
I've read most of your posts. They are bizarre for a conservative. Because,,,,,,,You are a liberal.
You really do need to visit that clinc you asked about.. Do it today.
No it doesn't. I have never taken that oath, I have only met a handful of people who have, and I'm guessing you haven't either.
If you have, you missed the point of the constitution and should return to whatever hell hole you came from.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.